PANNALAL HIRALAL BACHKANIWALA (HUF), SURAT V. ITO, WARD-3(2)(2)Q, SURAT

MA 50/SRT/2022

AI Insights

The case revolves around a dispute concerning the valuation of a property for tax purposes, specifically the fair market value as of April 1, 1981. The assessee, Pannalal Hiralal Bachkaniwala (HUF), contested the valuation adopted by the District Valuation Officer (DVO) at Rs.53 per square meter, proposing instead a valuation of Rs.60 per square meter provided by their registered valuer. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Surat Bench, had previously ruled on this matter, and the assessee filed a Miscellaneous Application under section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, claiming a mistake apparent from the record in the Tribunal's earlier decision. The Tribunal, after reviewing the submissions and the relevant legal provisions, concluded that there was no apparent mistake in the original order and dismissed the application.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 301717 (ITAT-SURAT)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 4 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 22-02-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 22-12-2022
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 18-10-2022
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Fair market value; Valuation report
• Section: 254(2)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JM & DR. A. L. SAINI, AM Miscellaneous Application No.50/SRT/2022 [Arising in out of ITA No.101/SRT/2020] Assessment Year: (2014-15) (Physical Court Hearing) Pannalal Hiralal Bachkaniwala (HUF), A. K. Road, Hiralal Colony, Surat-395007. Vs. The ITO, Ward-3(2)(2), Surat. (Appellant) (Respondent) èथायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: AACHP3897A Assessee by Shri Umesh Dalal, CA Respondent by Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr.DR Date of Hearing 23/12/2022 Date of Pronouncement 23/02/2023 आदेश / O R D E R PER DR. A. L. SAINI, AM: By way of the captioned application, the assessee has sought to point out that a mistake apparent from record within the meaning of section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961( in short ‘ the Act’) has crept in the order of the Tribunal dated 19/07/2022, in ITA No.101/SRT/2020. 2. The contention of the assessee in this Miscellaneous Application is that registered valuer of the assessee has valued the property at Rs.60/- per square meter, as against the fair market value as on 01.04.1981 at the rate of Rs.53/- per square meter adopted by District Valuation Officer (DVO). The Ld. Counsel contended that Tribunal should have adopted Rs.60/- per square meter, as fair market value instead of Rs.53/- per square meter, hence this is apparent mistake in the Tribunal order, which needs rectification. 3. On the other hand, Learned Departmental Representative (Ld. DR) for the Revenue submitted that Tribunal has considered the entire facts and adjudicated the Page | 2 MA.50/SRT/2022/AY.2014-15 Pannalal Hiralal Bachkaniwala (HUF) issue in accordance with law, hence there is no mistake apparent on record, and therefore Tribunal order should not be recalled. 4. We have heard both the parties. We note that Tribunal has concluded the issue, observing as follows: “7. We have heard both the parties and carefully gone through the submissions put forth on behalf of the assessee along with the documents furnished and the case laws relied upon, and perused the facts of the case including the findings of the ld. CIT(A) and other material brought on record. We note that main dispute between the Assessee and Revenue is that assessee wants that his Registered Valuer report, wherein he valued @ Rs.60 per sq. Meter may be adopted to determine the fair market value on 01.04.1981 and Revenue wants that fair market value (FMV) at the rate of Rs.53 per sq. meter, as determined by the DVO should be considered. The difference is Rs.7/- (Rs.60 per sq. Meter – Rs.53 per sq. Meter). We note that the Valuation Report received from the Department Valuer, wherein he has taken the FMV at Rs.563 per sq. meter, appears quite reasonable. We note that there is no day and night difference between assessee’s Valuer’s report and Department Valuer’s report, hence assessee does not deserve further relief, therefore, we are of the view that the order of CIT(A) is just and proper and calls for no interference.” 5. We have gone through the above findings of the Tribunal and observed that there is no apparent mistake in the order of Tribunal, as the Tribunal has concluded the issue on merit by passing speaking order. The Tribunal has considered the facts of the assessee and arguments advanced by ld Counsel for the assessee as well as arguments of ld DR for the Revenue and came to a conclusion on merit. 6. The ratio of the judgment of the Tribunal cannot be reviewed or revised; only the apparent mistake on record can be rectified, as stated in the provisions of section 254(2) of the Act, which reads as follows: “Orders of Appellate Tribunal “254. (2) The Appellate Tribunal may, at any time within [six months from the end of the month in which the order was passed], with a view to rectifying any mistake apparent from the record, amend any order passed by it under sub- section (1), and shall make such amendment if the mistake is brought to its notice by the assessee or the [Assessing] Officer. Provided that an amendment which has the effect of enhancing an assessment or reducing a refund or otherwise increasing the liability of the assessee, shall not be made under this sub-section unless the Appellate Tribunal has given notice to the assessee of its intention to do so and has allowed the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard : [Provided further that any application filed by the assessee in this sub-section on or after the 1st day of October, 1998, shall be accompanied by a fee of fifty rupees.]” Page | 3 MA.50/SRT/2022/AY.2014-15 Pannalal Hiralal Bachkaniwala (HUF) 7. Having gone through sub-section 2 of section 254 of the Act, as noted above, we observed that “any mistake apparent from the record” can be rectified. The plain meaning of the word 'apparent' is that it must be something which appears to be ex-facie and incapable of argument and debate. Thus, section 254(2) of the Act does not cover any mistake which may be discovered by a complicated process of investigation, argument or proof. Therefore, amendment of an order under section 254(2) of the Act, does not mean entire obliteration of order originally passed by the Tribunal and its substitution by a new order of Tribunal, this is not permissible under section 254(2) of the Act. Power to rectify an order, under section 254(2) of the Act is extremely limited and it does not extend to correcting errors of law, or re-appreciating factual findings. Therefore, based on these facts and circumstances, we note that order passed by the Tribunal does not contain any mistake apparent from record. Hence, we dismiss the Miscellaneous Application filed by the assessee. 8. In the result, Miscellaneous Application filed by assessee is dismissed. Order is pronounced in the open court on 23/02/2023 by placing the result on the Notice Board. Sd/- Sd/- (PAWAN SINGH) (Dr. A.L. SAINI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER lwjr /Surat Ǒदनांक/ Date: 23/02/2023 SAMANTA Copy of the Order forwarded to 1. The Assessee 2. The Respondent 3. The CIT(A) 4. CIT 5. DR/AR, ITAT, Surat 6. Guard File By Order // TRUE COPY // Assistant Registrar/Sr. PS/PS ITAT, Surat